Not sure what you are talking about? You claim now that you had suggestion which was not considered, yet you +2'ed a patch, by stating that "All looks good to me!".
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com> wrote: > That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a smartest > reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t. > > Edgar > > On 8/6/14, 10:55 AM, "Sumit Naiksatam" <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Edgar, you seemed to have +2'ed this patch on July 2nd [1]: >> >>" >>Edgar Magana >>Jul 2 8:42 AM >> >>Patch Set 13: Code-Review+2 >> >>All looks good to me! I am not approving yet because Nachi was also >>reviewing this code and I would like to see his opinion as well. >>" >> >>That would suggest that you were happy with what was in it. I don't >>see anything in the review comments that suggests otherwise. >> >>[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95900/ >> >>On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com> >>wrote: >>> This is the consequence of a proposal that is not following the >>>standardized >>> terminology (IETF - RFC) for any Policy-based System: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3198 >>> >>> Well, I did bring this point during the Hong Kong Summit but as you >>>can see >>> my comments were totally ignored: >>> >>>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaBIr >>>upCD9E/edit >>> >>> I clearly saw this kind of issues coming. Let me quote myself what I >>> suggested: "For instance: "endpoints" should be "enforcement point" >>> >>> I do not understand why GBP did not include this suggestionŠ >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> From: Kevin Benton <blak...@gmail.com> >>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>> Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 10:22 AM >>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way >>> forward >>> >>> What I was referring to was also not Keystone's definition of an >>>endpoint. >>> It's almost as if the term has many uses and was not invented for >>>Keystone. >>> :-) >>> >>> http://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsug_html_chunked/ChStatEndpoints.html >>> >>> Did a similar discussion occur when Heat wanted to use the word >>>'template' >>> since this was clearly already in use by Horizon? >>> >>> On Aug 6, 2014 9:24 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 08/06/2014 02:12 AM, Kevin Benton wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Given that, pointing to the Nova parity work seems a bit like a red >>>>> herring. This new API is being developed orthogonally to the existing >>>>> API endpoints >>>> >>>> >>>> You see how you used the term endpoints there? :P >>>> >>>> -jay >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>OpenStack-dev mailing list >>OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
